The described situation from first post is:

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Alright, it's time to give it a rest. Some people are entrenched in their views, nothing can change it despite being offered reasonable, plausible explanations. Fun debate. Anyways, i'm done my last game. See you in awhile CC.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good analogy, and I fully agree with the 2nd paragraph. But for me, this position of ours only justifies social shaming--but not CC moderation. (Perhaps K & X should have their names posted on a sticky thread titled "Wall of Shame").

BBS, even in a world of no government there exists such a notion as Justice. If it were in the hands of the community, at the very least there would be a stripping of the conqueror medal. Banishment would also be highly probable. If you make a "wall of shame" it will eventually be buried and new players and anyone who doesn't visit the forums or main page will put these guys in the same boat as "legit" conquerors, which would be a disgrace. Even someone with your purist views regarding authoritarian intervention has got to admit that the punishment ought to fit the crime.

Sure, in voluntary arrangements between individuals, there are contracts and institutions which can delineate the realm of justice (i.e. obligations and rules to each party), but I'm not sure where you're going with that.

RE: the rest, I somewhat believe that the accusation of collusion does not seem strong enough, and Mr Changsha makes a good case for collusion. However...

Is it reasonable for us to use statistics in order to reject a null hypothesis to provide some evidence? I'm not sure. How costly of a statistical method should be required? I dunno!

Given these constraints, we have that vague "abuse of the game" rule, so here's where we are:

(1) We can establish new rules for determining collusion because:

(a) I support the rule of law--i.e. equality before the law.(b) Clearer rules diminish the possibility of perverse incentives (e.g. Conqueror Corruption).(c) Clearer methods of prosecution reduce costs (e.g. 15 pages of this thread) and reduce the chance of accidentally enforcing injustice.

(2) or we can say, 'f*ck that' and appeal to the Ban Hammer.

I want more of #1 and less of #2, so that these entanglements can be somewhat reduced in the future.

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding, then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.Assuming that you two would stop colluding,then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding, then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.Assuming that you two would stop colluding,then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Alright, it's time to give it a rest. Some people are entrenched in their views, nothing can change it despite being offered reasonable, plausible explanations. Fun debate. Anyways, i'm done my last game. See you in awhile CC.

If you genuinely can't see that your play on this site has been dodgy in the extreme then I guess nothing more needs to be said. However, I suspect we will all continue to believe that you know exactly what you have been doing and treat this matter on that basis. In my view though the surest sign of a guilty conscience is if you scurry away the moment you reach your goal. It is more than suggestive. On the other hand, such a response (pissing off) should warm the hearts of those of us who play this game fair for it shows - as if we didn't already know this - that crime doesn't pay. The public reaction to your 'achievements' - strong condemnation of your play - naturally ruins a lot of the enjoyment you should be getting from this moment. You are the conqueror! Yet I doubt you are getting as much pleasure as you thought you would from it. This is because the validity of your play is massively suspect, thus the respect you are getting from what you have done is minimal and you are eliciting no little anger in some. Finally, your reaction to our criticism shows to me that you don't only care about the scoreboard, otherwise you would have been far less interested in defending yourself against our accusations of foul play. You obviously wanted the site's respect, yet are getting little and this bothers you.

jester88 wrote::twisted: YOU BOTH DONT UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF KING ACHILLES......... KIRON AND XIANGWANG ARE PART OF THE HARTH REVOLUTION... WHICH WILL SHOW U UNGRATEFUL BASTARDS.. WHERE THE POWER OF C.C TRULY LIES!!! LORD HARTH AND KING ACHILLES!!!! THE HARTH EMPIRE IS BORN!!! FU dmajor!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding, then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.Assuming that you two would stop colluding,then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?

No, but I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm not comparing their win-rates with each other and without each other. I'm analyzing K&X's win-rate with collusion, and K&X's winrate without collusion in order to show that X's #2 argument fails to support his position that they were not colluding.

X basically makes two arguments:(1) "Hey, if we were colluding, then our win rate would be higher (90%). Since it's 50%, then we aren't colluding."

Obviously, this doesn't settle the issue because if they're smart, they can collude enough so that they do not attain a 90% win rate. Instead, they could opt for a 50% winrate.

(2) "Our current winrate is 50%. If were were colluding, then our winrate would be 20% higher. Since it's not 20% higher, then we aren't colluding."

I wondered: this proves nothing. If they weren't colluding, their winrate could drop to 20%, thus it would be 30%. Since the counterfactual is unknown, i.e. since we can't determine what would have happened, then we cannot conclude if collusion occurred or didn't occur. How do demonstrate my case?

Thus,BBS basically makes the argumentImagine two worlds. World Red is where K&X collude. World Blue is where K&X aren't colluding.

In world Red (with collusion), K&X attain a 50% win rate.In world Blue (without collusion), K&X attain a 30% win rate--because they aren't that good without collusion.

Okay, back to the RL.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short, 1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated, 2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short, 1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated, 2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

It's not really a problem BBS, you're just making it more complex than it has to be.Let's say a runner had some hidden springy devices inside the soles of his/her shoes that gave him/her an advantage in a race and he/she ended up winning the race by like half a mile. Once the illegal devices are found, do you disqualify the runner for having an unfair advantage or do you ask: "Hmm, well since the runner won by such a landslide, maybe the springy things were nominally responsible for the win..."? The only way these guys can gain any "props" is if they start over and do it all legit because of course you have no way of knowing just how much the SD had to do with their scores. This is a case of secret diplomacy/point manipulation and that's against the rules. Why is it against the rules? Because it gives an unfair advantage, whether you recognize the advantage or not.

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding, then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.Assuming that you two would stop colluding,then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?

No, but I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm not comparing their win-rates with each other and without each other. I'm analyzing K&X's win-rate with collusion, and K&X's winrate without collusion in order to show that X's #2 argument fails to support his position that they were not colluding.

X basically makes two arguments:(1) "Hey, if we were colluding, then our win rate would be higher (90%). Since it's 50%, then we aren't colluding."

Obviously, this doesn't settle the issue because if they're smart, they can collude enough so that they do not attain a 90% win rate. Instead, they could opt for a 50% winrate.

(2) "Our current winrate is 50%. If were were colluding, then our winrate would be 20% higher. Since it's not 20% higher, then we aren't colluding."

I wondered: this proves nothing. If they weren't colluding, their winrate could drop to 20%, thus it would be 30%. Since the counterfactual is unknown, i.e. since we can't determine what would have happened, then we cannot conclude if collusion occurred or didn't occur. How do demonstrate my case?

Thus,BBS basically makes the argumentImagine two worlds. World Red is where K&X collude. World Blue is where K&X aren't colluding.

In world Red (with collusion), K&X attain a 50% win rate.In world Blue (without collusion), K&X attain a 30% win rate--because they aren't that good without collusion.

Okay, back to the RL.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short, 1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated, 2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

Exactly, there isnt one way of knowing. Even in the games listed in C&A report many players who are good at those settings have argued that A) some of the arguments/assertions made by Cof were due to lack of knowledge of the map/settings on his partB) that K and X played the game the way it is suppose to be played, passive and avoiding confrontation. I still dnt understand the collusion argument. If the collusion was evident in its self and we were sure without a doubt and their win rate is only 50%. Wouldnt it be logical to expect their win rate in games without each other where collusion is impossible to be considerably lower. After all, two heads is better than one. no matter which way you put it. And i think you are the first to openly suggest they might not be that good, from my readings there seems to be a general consensus that they have a mastery of the game at least on the crusade map in the freestyle settings.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short, 1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated, 2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

It's not really a problem BBS, you're just making it more complex than it has to be.Let's say a runner had some hidden springy devices inside the soles of his/her shoes that gave him/her an advantage in a race and he/she ended up winning the race by like half a mile. Once the illegal devices are found, do you disqualify the runner for having an unfair advantage or do you ask: "Hmm, well since the runner won by such a landslide, maybe the springy things were nominally responsible for the win..."? The only way these guys can gain any "props" is if they start over and do it all legit because of course you have no way of knowing just how much the SD had to do with their scores. This is a case of secret diplomacy/point manipulation and that's against the rules. Why is it against the rules? Because it gives an unfair advantage, whether you recognize the advantage or not.

At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma

At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma

For you, from C&A

Game 12395303- xiangwang hit everything around Vatican, but Vatican! he even hit one blue territory, just to make sure blue doesnt take over Vatican(2013-02-28 07:51:40 - xiangwang assaulted Apulia from Lombardy and conquered it from Private D)... he also knows Kiron is holding the objective, but plays dumb in chat:

The scores don't really matter, the rank doesn't really matter, the games won don't really matter, abuse or legal play doesn't matter.

Changsha alluded to it, in a subtle fashion (as he does so often). It matters little that one can argue from a point of law (whether something is against the rules) or whether an achieved objective is deserved due to way of achieving said objective.

Real cc rank is a matter of respect. In this I do not mean respect from those who know no better, but respect from those who do. To be Conqueror can mean that any one viewing the leaderboard says to themselves, "that player must be very very good indeed". The question is, does one obtain personal satisfaction by receiving that approbation from a player who knows no better or is the satisfaction quotient ultimately improved when this accolade is made by those players who are also proven top performers. I would always go for the latter but that is a personal choice. Furthermore, to surround oneself with acolytes and sycophants who will applaud every action, every achievement and every win (in the case of cc), will also, ultimately, bring no real satisfaction (this is as true in real life as it is here).

There will always be those who view any Conqueror with a measure of distrust as to how it was achieved. However, the real greats tend not to receive censure due to the simple fact that those who do perceive their achievement in this way cannot find anything to censure them with in any real combative manner.

We have had numerous Conquerors over the years, but I can count on two hands those who the community have really tipped their hats to and it is those who I remember with respect. As for the others, I just mark them down as another also ran who hadn't really got the talent to achieve so twisted the unsaid rules do so. For themselves, if they could but see it, in doing so they sowed the seeds of their own undoing.

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

SaMejoHn wrote:But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings.

Funny. I've won more than I've lost on that map. How about you? What part of the map or settings do you think I don't understand? How are the games I listed in the C&A 'tainted'?

I have my own opinion how they are tainted, as do the majority of others. Quite extraordinary how you see it otherwise.

Chariot of Fire wrote:You can repeat all you like about the stats not being favourable for either of you as individuals when you play together as opposed to when you play alone. But the higher win % when you are together (in a very convenient silent agreement to share the spoils of victory) is certainly not favourable for the other 6 poor sods who have joined your games. So whether you stand to benefit individually is irrelevant. As a 'team' you do, and this is unfair and detrimental to the chances of the other players.

I believe it's stated that the win % is lower as a "team" (or whatever you allege) than playing individually. I have already calculated the numbers and have shown that there is NO higher win % for 8 player freestyle playing together or when we play as a team. The OP already agreed with me thus refuting your largest allegation. When most people cheat or play multi, their win % as a team increases by at least 10-20%, for us it doesn't change or is slightly reduced. We both play for our own win. If we intentionally wanted to collude, i think we can hit 80-90% win rate together.

Nevertheless, assuming that you two are colluding, then this could boost your win rate by 10-20%.Assuming that you two would stop colluding,then your "natural" win rate would be 10-20% lower than the current win rate.

So, with this in mind, it could be the case that y'all two aren't that great, so y'all collude in order to attain a 'normal' win-rate of 50% or whatever seems normal--compared to better plays who don't collude yet do attain normal win rates. Therefore, comparisons of your current win-rate do not help us determine if collusion has or has not occurred.

But if the win rate is the same when they are without each other (we know that it is), doesn't that contradict what you are saying?

No, but I probably wasn't clear enough. I'm not comparing their win-rates with each other and without each other. I'm analyzing K&X's win-rate with collusion, and K&X's winrate without collusion in order to show that X's #2 argument fails to support his position that they were not colluding.

X basically makes two arguments:(1) "Hey, if we were colluding, then our win rate would be higher (90%). Since it's 50%, then we aren't colluding."

Obviously, this doesn't settle the issue because if they're smart, they can collude enough so that they do not attain a 90% win rate. Instead, they could opt for a 50% winrate.

(2) "Our current winrate is 50%. If were were colluding, then our winrate would be 20% higher. Since it's not 20% higher, then we aren't colluding."

I wondered: this proves nothing. If they weren't colluding, their winrate could drop to 20%, thus it would be 30%. Since the counterfactual is unknown, i.e. since we can't determine what would have happened, then we cannot conclude if collusion occurred or didn't occur. How do demonstrate my case?

Thus,BBS basically makes the argumentImagine two worlds. World Red is where K&X collude. World Blue is where K&X aren't colluding.

In world Red (with collusion), K&X attain a 50% win rate.In world Blue (without collusion), K&X attain a 30% win rate--because they aren't that good without collusion.

Okay, back to the RL.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short, 1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated, 2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

I will address your 2 points in why I think they're wrong.

You wrote(1) "Hey, if we were colluding, then our win rate would be higher (90%). Since it's 50%, then we aren't colluding."

Obviously, this doesn't settle the issue because if they're smart, they can collude enough so that they do not attain a 90% win rate. Instead, they could opt for a 50% winrate.

1. If I am colluding I will try to get the maximum win rate possible, there is not incentive to opt for a win rate that is my natural win rate playing 8 player freestyle when we can just play alone (49%) and get the same win rate and avoid all the suspicion that comes with playing together.

Regarding point 2, you wrote"

(2) "Our current winrate is 50%. If were were colluding, then our winrate would be 20% higher. Since it's not 20% higher, then we aren't colluding."

I wondered: this proves nothing. If they weren't colluding, their winrate could drop to 20%, thus it would be 30%. Since the counterfactual is unknown, i.e. since we can't determine what would have happened, then we cannot conclude if collusion occurred or didn't occur. How do demonstrate my case?

2. While it's true we can never predict the future of what will actually happen. But from the past records,our acheivements playing freestyle win rate alone is quite high (mine is 49%) and kiron is 60% with a fairly large sample size. Why would our win rate drop to 30% when we play with each other if we are not colluding when you are counting us as a team? Yes, from past games our individual win rates drop down significantly when we play together (like down to 25-30% each), but if you seem to be counting both of our scores together as a team (vs. 6 players), which is no different than us playing alone (vs. 7 players) so our win rates are within norms of what we have when playing alone. Your assumption is based on the counterfactual not being present, but from our past game history of just playing alone we showed that counterfactual that our win rates are the same as the win rates when you count us as a team. If we were colluding it should be undoubtly higher.

At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma

For you, from C&A

Game 12395303- xiangwang hit everything around Vatican, but Vatican! he even hit one blue territory, just to make sure blue doesnt take over Vatican(2013-02-28 07:51:40 - xiangwang assaulted Apulia from Lombardy and conquered it from Private D)... he also knows Kiron is holding the objective, but plays dumb in chat:

Just have a quick look to the game, this one gave me certainty, but there is more example.

I am not saying they have been cheating all along, but they should not have been playing together, they crossed the line more than once.

Trust me, playing fog is much harder than it looks. It's always easier to be an armchair critic. if it's so easy then why don't you join a fog game that I created? Mistakes do happen in games, winning games is about who makes the least mistakes since all sides WILL make mistakes (play a specific game long enough you will start to see it). I have made many mistakes such a misdeploying, forgetting to reinforce properly, attacking wrong regions, etc in my games over time. Even at my level you WILL still make mistakes. Winning is about reducing your mistakes and also recovering. Just sometimes you don't have time to recover and that's usually when game is over or you're dead. But you live and learn.

I'm fairly sure if I look hard enough I can find mistakes from many player's previous games that can look like they were throwing away the game. Mistakes happen, it's part of CC, you learn to reduce it over time. Even if you do reduce you will find you make other ones. Some moves look quite straightforward, but in a range of many factors may look wrong. There is a reason why we favour complex maps, we are likely to make less mistakes than other players based on experience. I don't remember what I was think that game, but it seems I made a mistake somewhere there, and i didn't have time to recover. Mistakes happen, learn from it. If we were colluding then we would just wiped out the 3rd player and settle it between ourselves in that game, no need to waste troops on each other.

im all ready show,in Third crusade statistic, that K and X together have 66% of win rate, unfortunately all other players who join hes games on Third Crusade individual have only 5,59% chance to win(of course if 6 players make team against X-K then they chance for win increase up to 34%) ,, so maybe its better to give some warning to all people to avoid these points trap.

It's worth pointing out as well that comparing their win percentages in games where they don't play together, to the win percentages in games where they do doesn't give as much statistical backing to their position as you might think.

The win percentages where they don't play together are inflated by the fact that typically those games had a lot of lower ranked players - Kiron has a long run of games where the majority of his opponents are sub 1600 - and a shortish run where there's a lot of NR in his games. The games where they play together are generally packed with high rank players who are skilled on that map.

That isn't proof, but it does undermine one of the key defences they've been running that there's nothing fishy going on.

Your main arguement seems to be that your win ratio doesn´t go up significant.

So i checked your games.

It´s correct, you don´t have a higher win ratio when you (X&K) are in the same game. But there are many more high ranked opponents. If you would play the same level of opponents in all games, ok. But i doubt that is the case here, and so we have to expect a much higher win ratio against low ranks than against high ranks. I think we can agree that playing a random group of low ranked players is easier than against let´s say Rodion, Kaskavel, mc, killface, jsnyder748? If so, we agree that your win ratio should be much higher against the random privates and sergeants?

Well, actually you said yourself that your win ratio is the same, with or without Kiron.

Changsha alluded to it, in a subtle fashion (as he does so often). It matters little that one can argue from a point of law (whether something is against the rules) or whether an achieved objective is deserved due to way of achieving said objective.

Real cc rank is a matter of respect. In this I do not mean respect from those who know no better, but respect from those who do. To be Conqueror can mean that any one viewing the leaderboard says to themselves, "that player must be very very good indeed". The question is, does one obtain personal satisfaction by receiving that approbation from a player who knows no better or is the satisfaction quotient ultimately improved when this accolade is made by those players who are also proven top performers. I would always go for the latter but that is a personal choice. Furthermore, to surround oneself with acolytes and sycophants who will applaud every action, every achievement and every win (in the case of cc), will also, ultimately, bring no real satisfaction (this is as true in real life as it is here).

There will always be those who view any Conqueror with a measure of distrust as to how it was achieved. However, the real greats tend not to receive censure due to the simple fact that those who do perceive their achievement in this way cannot find anything to censure them with in any real combative manner.

We have had numerous Conquerors over the years, but I can count on two hands those who the community have really tipped their hats to and it is those who I remember with respect. As for the others, I just mark them down as another also ran who hadn't really got the talent to achieve so twisted the unsaid rules do so. For themselves, if they could but see it, in doing so they sowed the seeds of their own undoing.

If one looks superfically at xiangwang's record he certainly seems to be one of the standard players cc has ever seen. Yet we see so many of his games have been with kiron (his greatest offence), he plays on non-standard maps, he plays freestyle, he prefers fog against the unwary and you add all that together and you actually have a player who may shout about his 50+% win rate but actually, really, one is far from sure that he is actually all that good.

I was amused by his comment earlier that a 42% win rate at 8 man dubs is not that great. In fact he pointed to a 70% win rate as being where the 'top players are'. Well, find me a player who has played 8 man dubs on basic maps and standard settings with a 70% win rate and I will applaud them. He seems to see the win rate as key, but ignores the basis of which that win rate was achieved. Respect is gained from playing your equals as much as possible on fair settings and beating them square. Every game that has involved dubious tactics, or the smell of farming is a lasting stain upon one's record.

This can be very clearly seen by the public reaction to these two. As a group we are pulling their records apart; game after game is looked at and while each one is individually hard to prove as an abuse, collectively they present an overwhelming picture of players who have chosen the opposite of my suggested route to respect.

I can accept farmers at the top of the scoreboard because to an extent all players much above 3500 are going to have get into relatively dubious practices to continue to increase. The most successful farmers (rabbiton, herpes) are simply the extreme end of a common practice that affects most of the upper ranks of the site to varying degrees. But what we have here is blatant CHEATING (which is different to farming). I consider all of xiangwang's games with kiron to be obvious examples of cheating - and am confident that with further examination by those more qualified than I my assertion will prove to be true - and cheats have absolutely no place at the top of the scoreboard.

As a standard player myself, I know just what they were thinking when they made the gaming decisions that they did. I also noticed that freestyle would give me an advantage...yet I continued to play sequentially. It was very obvious that I could add in one or two of my real-life friends into games and control an 8 man standard with ease...but I chose not to. It was clear that I could master a complex map maybe add in fog and bemuse those hapless enough to find themselves playing me. But I didn't. Kiron and xiangwang on the other hand encountered the same questions but took a very different path. Their win rates and scores may be much higher than mine but you know in a year or two I will still be here, my record will remain clean, while they will be gone and their records, if remembered at all, will have the lasting taint of cheating.

At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma

For you, from C&A

Game 12395303- xiangwang hit everything around Vatican, but Vatican! he even hit one blue territory, just to make sure blue doesnt take over Vatican(2013-02-28 07:51:40 - xiangwang assaulted Apulia from Lombardy and conquered it from Private D)... he also knows Kiron is holding the objective, but plays dumb in chat:

Just have a quick look to the game, this one gave me certainty, but there is more example.

I am not saying they have been cheating all along, but they should not have been playing together, they crossed the line more than once.

Trust me, playing fog is much harder than it looks. It's always easier to be an armchair critic. if it's so easy then why don't you join a fog game that I created? Mistakes do happen in games, winning games is about who makes the least mistakes since all sides WILL make mistakes (play a specific game long enough you will start to see it). I have made many mistakes such a misdeploying, forgetting to reinforce properly, attacking wrong regions, etc in my games over time. Even at my level you WILL still make mistakes. Winning is about reducing your mistakes and also recovering. Just sometimes you don't have time to recover and that's usually when game is over or you're dead. But you live and learn.

I'm fairly sure if I look hard enough I can find mistakes from many player's previous games that can look like they were throwing away the game. Mistakes happen, it's part of CC, you learn to reduce it over time. Even if you do reduce you will find you make other ones. Some moves look quite straightforward, but in a range of many factors may look wrong. There is a reason why we favour complex maps, we are likely to make less mistakes than other players based on experience. I don't remember what I was think that game, but it seems I made a mistake somewhere there, and i didn't have time to recover. Mistakes happen, learn from it. If we were colluding then we would just wiped out the 3rd player and settle it between ourselves in that game, no need to waste troops on each other.

I've been to these games with you guys. Mistakes? You guys engage in the most annoying diplomacy, go over and over in truces and in some way you always make it sunny for you and foggy for the rest. Diplomacy is ok I guess, and I understand it only that in excess it annoys ME. What I'm trying to say is that I find it difficult to believe that it was a mistake.

You two keep making arguments nobody is buying, at some point you gotta give it a rest and take it like a man.

Therefore, even if their winrate is 50%, and that this does not allegedly constitute as colluding in X's opinion, it still is not clear if they colluded or not. It could be the case that given their best ability in collusion, they can only attain a 50% winrate. Without collusion it would drop to 30%. But I made up these numbers of the counterfactual for the sake of that example. In other words, we have no idea what their winrate would've been without collusion, and we cannot from the beginning know if they colluded or not.

Which world is the real one? Red or Blue? We can't know lol.

In short, 1. since the counterfactual cannot be demonstrated, 2. and since we do have a priori knowledge of their collusion or non-collusion,3. then no one can conclude that collusion did (or did not) occur--given X's arguments and anyone else's who uses similar reasoning.

Big problem.

It's not really a problem BBS, you're just making it more complex than it has to be.Let's say a runner had some hidden springy devices inside the soles of his/her shoes that gave him/her an advantage in a race and he/she ended up winning the race by like half a mile. Once the illegal devices are found, do you disqualify the runner for having an unfair advantage or do you ask: "Hmm, well since the runner won by such a landslide, maybe the springy things were nominally responsible for the win..."? The only way these guys can gain any "props" is if they start over and do it all legit because of course you have no way of knowing just how much the SD had to do with their scores. This is a case of secret diplomacy/point manipulation and that's against the rules. Why is it against the rules? Because it gives an unfair advantage, whether you recognize the advantage or not.

At what point did you move from reasonable doubt to absolute certainty? Im sure that they are guilty in the one game brought forth by josko but even that considering it happened to Kiron and he was led to believe it was legal i wont judge. But the games brought forth by CoF in C&A are tainted to say the very least. I've read on more than one occasion of how he misinterpreted things because he didn't know the map or settings. I dont understand why everyone is so quick to pass judgement and with such dogma

So evidence of one or two instances isn't enough? If an olympic athlete is caught using steroids they get stripped of their medals, regardless of how many times they were actually caught doping because it's safe to assume that if they were caught doing it once they actually did it more than once, perhaps even all the time.